Brexit

[Otern]

Voters should be able to make their decision based on the facts not lies.

Fair enough then. But why aren't remainers on trial for their lies? This law will be selectively enforced, and that's not justice at all.

[StCapps]

Voters should be able to make their decision based on the facts not lies.

Fair enough then. But why aren't remainers on trial for their lies? This law will be selectively enforced, and that's not justice at all.

Voters aren't going to make their decisions based on facts just because of a selectively enforced law says politicians can't lie about numbers related to finances. It is not the way to get what you want Monte, all it will be used for is to inflict collateral damage, it's a plan doomed to backfire, and here you are chastising us for trying to prevent that from happening to you. Very ungrateful.


There is no world in which the voters will make their decision based purely on facts with no lies, no amount of laws on politicians behavior is going to change that, come up with a better plan to incentivize telling the truth in politics instead of playing whack-a-mole with the lies that will never not be part of the game. Make rules that exploit human nature to bait them into doing the right thing, don't make rules that ignore human nature and assume humans will be paragons of virtue instead.

Your heart is in the right place montegriffo, but your plan will only exacerbate the problem.

[Montegriffo]

Using fiction as an argument.
Boris would be proud of you.

[Montegriffo]

Voters should be able to make their decision based on the facts not lies.

Fair enough then. But why aren't remainers on trial for their lies? This law will be selectively enforced, and that's not justice at all.

If the precedent is set then no side will be immune.

Not sure what example of blatantly lying about finances you are referring to from the remainers.
A European army was not even a talking point here and is not a financial distortion.

[Otern]

If the precedent is set then no side will be immune.

Not sure what example of blatantly lying about finances you are referring to from the remainers.
A European army was not even a talking point here and is not a financial distortion.

No side was better than the other when it came to financial distortion. They said the economy would collapse just because of the vote, nevermind actually leaving. And it didn't happen, yet it remains to see what happens once you leave.

And the reason the European army wasn't a talking point, was the total rejection of the reality of it by the remainers, which makes it an even bigger lie.

And come on, do you really believe no side will be immune? The reason Boris Johnson is on trial, is because of a popular mainstream demand of him being prosecuted. The popular demand is understandable, but when the justice system gives in to popular demand, you have a problem. It's legalized mob mentality, and it's going to backfire.

You're not a bad person, but I'm amazed how you don't see the ramifications of how corrupted your justice system is starting to become. Our justice system is also starting to become corrupted, but so far, it looks like the British will reach "totally rotten" before us.

[Montegriffo]

Predictions about the possible effects of Brexit on the economy are not the same thing as blatant lies about known information.
Predicting the future and lying about previous costs are very different.
And yes, I believe that if the prosecution is successful then no future politicians will be able to so deliberately misinform the public over finances.
Increased scrutiny of our corrupt officials can never be a bad thing.

[StCapps]

And yes, I believe that if the prosecution is successful then no future politicians will be able to so deliberately misinform the public over finances.

Your heart is in the right place, but damn you're naive. Wishful thinking is a helluva drug.

[Otern]

Predictions about the possible effects of Brexit on the economy are not the same thing as blatant lies about known information.
Predicting the future and lying about previous costs are very different.
And yes, I believe that if the prosecution is successful then no future politicians will be able to so deliberately misinform the public over finances.
Increased scrutiny of our corrupt officials can never be a bad thing.

I actually do want there to be consequences for politicians lying about finances. So let's see what he lied about; he had a bus with a slogan regarding 350 million being sent to the EU. And a proposition that spending it on the NHS would've been better.

First things first. 350 million is being sent, but some of it comes back, so the actual number might be somewhere closer to 250 million. (250 million is what I seem to find when going for neutral sources, but please tell me if I'm wrong). So let's explore this lie, or if it is a lie. They do send 350 million, which is a fact. But they also get 100 million back, which is also a fact, but a fact not mentioned in the slogan on the bus. So basically, misleading by withholding the entire truth.

And everyone do this. Not just about finances, but in any debate, on any subject, everywhere. It's not right to do so, it's misleading, and it's dumbing down complex problems.

So, would it be better if it said "250 million" on the bus instead of "350 million"? It would then be a lie in the technical sense, but true in the practical sense. Or it could say something like; "We sent 350 million each week, and only get 100 million back, let's fund the NHS instead". Now it would be true in both the technical sense, and the practical sense. The same message would get across, but it's also making the slogan more complex and harder to read. No political group do this, even though it makes the message more truthful.

In fact, the remainers had their own bus afterwards, with their own misleading slogan; "77% of us don't want Brexit". Referring to young people. https://factcheckni.org/facts/do-77-of- ... nt-brexit/
Do I want these people prosecuted for running that slogan on the bus? Fuck no. They're doing the exact same as Boris Johnson.

And lastly, remainers put way to much emphasis on that bus, when it comes to the outcome of the election. It could say "250 million" instead of "350 million", and the overall message wouldn't change. And of course Brexit wouldn't mean you'd have 250-350 million more for the NHS. Noone actually believes this. But it contained a proposition to fund the NHS INSTEAD of wasting it on the EU, which is totally legitimate. It's not different from any other political group campaigning against waste they don't like. Take something you don't want to support, and claim these money could be better spent on something you support.

Still clinging on to that bus, means you haven't understood what people were voting for. That bus is not what caused Brexit. People aren't THAT stupid.

[Montegriffo]

Predictions about the possible effects of Brexit on the economy are not the same thing as blatant lies about known information.
Predicting the future and lying about previous costs are very different.
And yes, I believe that if the prosecution is successful then no future politicians will be able to so deliberately misinform the public over finances.
Increased scrutiny of our corrupt officials can never be a bad thing.

I actually do want there to be consequences for politicians lying about finances. So let's see what he lied about; he had a bus with a slogan regarding 350 million being sent to the EU. And a proposition that spending it on the NHS would've been better.

First things first. 350 million is being sent, but some of it comes back, so the actual number might be somewhere closer to 250 million. (250 million is what I seem to find when going for neutral sources, but please tell me if I'm wrong). So let's explore this lie, or if it is a lie. They do send 350 million, which is a fact. But they also get 100 million back, which is also a fact, but a fact not mentioned in the slogan on the bus. So basically, misleading by withholding the entire truth.

And everyone do this. Not just about finances, but in any debate, on any subject, everywhere. It's not right to do so, it's misleading, and it's dumbing down complex problems.

So, would it be better if it said "250 million" on the bus instead of "350 million"? It would then be a lie in the technical sense, but true in the practical sense. Or it could say something like; "We sent 350 million each week, and only get 100 million back, let's fund the NHS instead". Now it would be true in both the technical sense, and the practical sense. The same message would get across, but it's also making the slogan more complex and harder to read. No political group do this, even though it makes the message more truthful.

In fact, the remainers had their own bus afterwards, with their own misleading slogan; "77% of us don't want Brexit". Referring to young people. https://factcheckni.org/facts/do-77-of- ... nt-brexit/
Do I want these people prosecuted for running that slogan on the bus? Fuck no. They're doing the exact same as Boris Johnson.

And lastly, remainers put way to much emphasis on that bus, when it comes to the outcome of the election. It could say "250 million" instead of "350 million", and the overall message wouldn't change. And of course Brexit wouldn't mean you'd have 250-350 million more for the NHS. Noone actually believes this. But it contained a proposition to fund the NHS INSTEAD of wasting it on the EU, which is totally legitimate. It's not different from any other political group campaigning against waste they don't like. Take something you don't want to support, and claim these money could be better spent on something you support.

Still clinging on to that bus, means you haven't understood what people were voting for. That bus is not what caused Brexit. People aren't THAT stupid.

It's my understanding that the rebate comes out before the money is sent and what comes back is the money for things like regional development and the countryside stewardship scene (agricultural subsidies).
Making the actual cost to us around 180 million or slightly over half of the lie on the bus.
For reference, the weekly cost of the NHS is 2 billion pounds.

It wasn't only on the bus either. Boris and his team kept repeating the figure throughout the campaign and it was only after the result that he finally admitted on record that it wasn't the true figure.

It was a conscious, deliberate misleading of the public by a public official.

[Ph64]

Here's the thing,

Whether it's £250mil, or £180mil, or whatever... Your average voter just sees it as "a fuckton of money we're sending to the EU we could be spending in our own country and on our own citizens".

Now, we here all understand that £180mil in the grand scheme of government spending, in the US or UK, is a drop in the proverbial bucket because governments piss money away like a drunken sailor... But to your average working schlub stocking shelves at Tesco or whatnot, it sounds big - hell, it's more money than they're likely to see in their lifetime. They're getting by on £25-40k, they see £180mil and think "that's enough the govt could hand me £3 a week" , and if you're struggling paycheck-to-paycheck to pay rent, bills, feed yourself and maybe a family, etc, that can make a difference.

It could be £66mil, that's a pound a week to every person in the UK...and "we" are sending it to a bunch of unelected beaurocrats in Brussels... Why?

The actual amount, to the typical voter, was irrelevant. They heard "money going out, for nothing" in return. More money in a week than they're ever going to see in their lifetime. The actual amount was irrelevant.